An interesting take on the climate issue

[Busyman™]

You were either refuting me or trying to convince me of something.

And no I disagree. If it is proven that cleaner air is simply a benefit then one must look at the cost involved. Otherwise there is no urgency, is there?

I wasn't refuting you and i wasn't trying to convince you of anything.

Dude (or dudette) you really need to pay attention how you start off posts then.

If I say "spent the money for nothing" and you say "not for nothing" and then follow with back-up, that's refutation.

My statements were in context to the fellow on the vid. I pointed out such and you and atfdsdgdfdaS were still doing fuck-all. Jeez, it's like arguing with SnnY about whether basketball is a contact sport..

[tracydani3]

LOL, so I see. It made perfect sense to me At any rate, reading back through, I was thinking the same as you when I watched this clip last week.

[Snee]

My statements were in context to the fellow on the vid. I pointed out such and you and atfdsdgdfdaS were still doing fuck-all. Jeez, it's like arguing with SnnY about whether basketball is a contact sport..

=-=-

I'm still hung up on the whole "global depression"-bit myself.

I mean, if things go bad like people say we're fucked, sure, but in some areas of the world the climate and stuff will be just right

[ilw]

I wonder how many people realise that the energy output by the sun in a week far exceeds the total energy produced by mankind EVER. When you consider what effect even a small rise in that sort of energy production would have, and it happens regularly, you soon realise that the idea that global warming is man-made is dreaming born of arrogance. We simply don't have the capability to do it.

energy output by sun reaching the earth's surface or what?
anyway regardless, surely some of the rest of your comment is in support of anthropogenic GW, no climate scientists are claiming we can produce enough energy to warm the earth, that would be daft. What they are claiming is that instead of the small percentage rise in solar energy production you mention, they are claiming a small but significant percentage rise in the amount of solar energy which doesn't get re-emitted by the earth.
The quantity of energy that humans create is neither here nor there, the argument is about:
whether greenhouse gases exist (pretty much proven),
how much impact various greenhouse gases have,
whether mankind is capable of having a significant impact on the quantities of greenhouse gases in particular CO2
Then if you accept the scientific information above you enter the quagmire that is how the earth's climate will react to the increased greenhouse gas and heat. Will it overall be negative feedback to maintain current temps, positive feedback which will screw us, or will it be neither (also will probably screw us)

[vidcc]

I wonder how many people realise that the energy output by the sun in a week far exceeds the total energy produced by mankind EVER. When you consider what effect even a small rise in that sort of energy production would have, and it happens regularly, you soon realise that the idea that global warming is man-made is dreaming born of arrogance. We simply don't have the capability to do it.

It's not the energy that man puts out that is warming the earth. The sun is the heat source. It's the contributing effect our pollution has on the earth's "insulation" that is man's issue

[lynx]

I wonder how many people realise that the energy output by the sun in a week far exceeds the total energy produced by mankind EVER. When you consider what effect even a small rise in that sort of energy production would have, and it happens regularly, you soon realise that the idea that global warming is man-made is dreaming born of arrogance. We simply don't have the capability to do it.

energy output by sun reaching the earth's surface or what?
anyway regardless, surely some of the rest of your comment is in support of anthropogenic GW, no climate scientists are claiming we can produce enough energy to warm the earth, that would be daft. What they are claiming is that instead of the small percentage rise in solar energy production you mention, they are claiming a small but significant percentage rise in the amount of solar energy which doesn't get re-emitted by the earth.
The quantity of energy that humans create is neither here nor there, the argument is about:
whether greenhouse gases exist (pretty much proven),
how much impact various greenhouse gases have,
whether mankind is capable of having a significant impact on the quantities of greenhouse gases in particular CO2
Then if you accept the scientific information above you enter the quagmire that is how the earth's climate will react to the increased greenhouse gas and heat. Will it overall be negative feedback to maintain current temps, positive feedback which will screw us, or will it be neither (also will probably screw us)

I'm well aware of the theories, trouble is that is all they are. There is not one iota of evidence that we are producing enough of the greenhouse gases to make a fraction of the difference being claimed.

On the other hand there is an overwhelming mass of evidence that the output of the sun has varied in the past by much more than the amount necessary to cause the current rise, and there is evidence that it is doing so again.

The claim is that if we follow this course and it isn't caused by CO2 emissions then we've lost nothing, except a bit of money.

Absolute total bollocks.

If it isn't caused by CO2 emissions then the oceans are still going to rise, the deserts are still going to expand, and so on for all the rest of the potential horrors we are being warned about. And we will have done absolutely nothing to alleviate the results because we were concentrating on cutting CO2 production.

[Busyman™]

If it isn't caused by CO2 emissions then the oceans are still going to rise, the deserts are still going to expand, and so on for all the rest of the potential horrors we are being warned about. And we will have done absolutely nothing to alleviate the results because we were concentrating on cutting CO2 production.

That's what the whole hoopla is about, lynx.

[lynx]

If it isn't caused by CO2 emissions then the oceans are still going to rise, the deserts are still going to expand, and so on for all the rest of the potential horrors we are being warned about. And we will have done absolutely nothing to alleviate the results because we were concentrating on cutting CO2 production.

That's what the whole hoopla is about, lynx.

Nope, advocates of the CO2 theory state that there is no downside if they are wrong.

My point is that we are concentrating on something which even the most ardent advocates have to admit may be false, and even if they are right we may still not be able to do much about. In the meantime if everyone follows their advice to the fullest extent we will almost certainly see the world economy spiralling down into the deepest recession ever encountered the result of which would probably cause deaths on a far greater scale than GW.

Combine such a depression with the full effects of GW (which I believe would be the result of these futile attempts at attacking a non-cause) and we would see a global disaster which even the gloomiest of doom-sayers would have a hard time to portray.

If instead we concentrated on battling the effects of GW, we could do so without having to dramatically alter our lifestyle. At the same time the activities required would be positive rather than negative, thus stimulating the world economy and allowing more benefits to disseminate to areas currently suffering through poverty.

Global warming is probably taking place. Let's concentrate on things that we know will work, not on some wishy-washy unproven theory.

[Busyman™]

That's what the whole hoopla is about, lynx.

Nope, advocates of the CO2 theory state that there is no downside if they are wrong.

My point is that we are concentrating on something which even the most ardent advocates have to admit may be false, and even if they are right we may still not be able to do much about. In the meantime if everyone follows their advice to the fullest extent we will almost certainly see the world economy spiralling down into the deepest recession ever encountered the result of which would probably cause deaths on a far greater scale than GW.

Combine such a depression with the full effects of GW (which I believe would be the result of these futile attempts at attacking a non-cause) and we would see a global disaster which even the gloomiest of doom-sayers would have a hard time to portray.

If instead we concentrated on battling the effects of GW, we could do so without having to dramatically alter our lifestyle. At the same time the activities required would be positive rather than negative, thus stimulating the world economy and allowing more benefits to disseminate to areas currently suffering through poverty.

Global warming is probably taking place. Let's concentrate on things that we know will work, not on some wishy-washy unproven theory.

I'm not for immediate drastic changes either. However, as I said before, there is shit that isn't being enforced, small shit that the average joe and business aren't doing that is better for the environment, and it all costs very little to do.

What drastic changes are being proposed btw?

[ilw]

For GW sceptics, heres a website where you can pick your poison and see a precis why the climate scientists at the IPCC (who just might know a teeny tiny bit more than you about the subject) think you're wrong